Posted on 05/06/2012 12:21:36 PM PDT by edge919
The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??
Mark...
God bless Orly, even if she is always tripping over her own feet.
Anyone but Taitz. It would be nice if anyone else would bring these cases.
Something is going on here. In other states, they basically got away with the so-called “empty table/empty suit” defense by doing little to respond and forcing the judges to make excuses for the Kenyan Coward. By contrast, this is very highly detailed motion against a plaintiff who hasn’t had a successful time challenging Obama.
You mean, in behalf of a plaintiff?
Maybe... it isn’t just Orly cranking out the legal paperwork this time. Maybe she got a partner with a clue.
**********
No one else in the whole eligibity furball...
--Has remained on task with the same tenacity as Orly Taitz...
Just sayin'
**********
No one else in the whole eligibity furball...
--Has remained on task with the same tenacity as Orly Taitz...
Just sayin'
And no one else has the ability to piss off state judges quite the way she seems to manage it.
She needs a local presenter anywhere she goes. IANAL, but I did watch her presentation here in GA live, and it’s on that plus reading similar comments about her style elsewhere that I base my comments.
No doubt but i read article after article (which i find nowhere but here) where she makes a misstep.
Ms ping
‘...the SCOTUS precedent: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”’
__
Of course, if that were a SCOTUS precedent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
>> You mean, in behalf of a plaintiff? <<
Orly may not know the difference.
LOL I half believe it.
Trouble is she keeps on covering the whole ball with fur.
Hardly...they're laying a solid foundation for future birther lawsuits.
This document reads like a classic FR birther thread. They articulate the Taitz claim, and then rebut it.
Sloppy birther legal strategery is helping establish anti-birther precedent. These folks are using numerous previous losses to buttress their case... and "RICO" may have been the last straw. I think they want to put an end to Orly's antics once and for all. Besides...the Dems would love to have her in California running against Feinstein.
There have already about 100 so-called birther lawsuits. It's taken this long for someone to lay down a "solid foundaton"??? ... and sorry, but the motion reads like a classic Fogger and Faither disinformation website. The "anti-birther precedents" have been all over the road ... one assumes Obama was born in Hawaii ... with no legal evidence to support the assumption ... another simply says that proving his place of birth is irrelevant ... another says that the NBC precedent is in Ankeny ... another says it's in Minor, but only for defining NBC outside of the Constitution, which is true, but undermines the conclusion made by the judges. There's certainly sloppy strategery, but it's not just on the part of so-called birthers.
I’m no lawyer, and I don’t pretend to play one on teevee.
However, I hope and pray that the truth will eventually come out, and will be exposed to everyone to the point where there is nothing in dispute.
By all means, let's have just such a conversation. Nationally.
Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.
It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizenS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
That is a part of the holding in a unanimous SCOTUS ruling that has never been overturned.
Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard in citizenship as applies to, and only to eligibility to assume the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.
Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling.
You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.
Is it true in a court of law that if a copy is submitted (by Obama’s side) as evidence, then the other side can demand the original.
Did Obama’s side submit the photocopy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.